Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Let's all focus on software patents rather than all patents in general. The argument is much more cut and dry. If we focus all our energy on getting rid of software patents, I think it would be more beneficial than trying to reform all patent law. Once we've gotten rid of software patents, then we can move to reforming the patent law in regards to areas that are much more gray.

American companies insist on having rights! The fact that they are getting those rights does not mean the rights are doing anyone any good. In fact the pharmaceutical industry is in trouble because they've been leaning on their patents instead of doing basic research. Now the patents are expiring and the companies have nothing else to offer. In that light, the patent system is doing tremendous harm.

I like your sig. I would only add that intellectual property is incoherent with nature. Nature is the best example of how ideas are copied, improved and discarded when they don't work anymore. The entire concept of intellectual property is an attempt to disregard a billion years of evolution.

"patents do not stifle progress when they occur at early phases of research"

Implies that they do stifle progress later on.Perception is at play here.Investors simply want to know that they will control the market; no competition, easy profit.This is the ONLY thing patents do if you speak of progress.But once entrenched, those interests will do whatever it takes to dominate and control.Patents either need to go away completely or be very limited.But unfortunately the destructive power of greed will not allow people to "limit" patents.So what is the solution?

Regardless of the answer to the second question, the answer to the first question is "no". Threatening to imprison or kill individuals, which is what all laws ultimately are, is unjustified. No, we don't deserve everything for free. Yes, it's immoral to derive value from someone's hard work without compensation. But immoral does not equal illegal. The government should, at most, be using its monopoly on violence to protect people and their property. Using violence, locking people in cages, destroying their lives, killing them, just to promote something that would exist anyways, is asinine and barbaric.

by John Perkins. If you haven't seen it, it is worth seeing (or reading, because there is a book). We go to them and make them an offer they can't refuse: in this pocket, there is enough money to make you and your family wealthy; in this pocket there is a gun...what's it going to be?

For some reason, America has a strong desire to make the rest of the world "like us." Our foreign policy mirrors that. First we attempt to buy them off. If that doesn't work, we shoot them.

True freedom means that people are free to make their own choices, for better or for worse. Luckily, the US will step in to make sure everyone makes the right choice...and you better bet your life the right choice is that everyone ends up looking just like us.

The next time you visit Disneyland, or Disneyworld, be sure to thank them for helping to pave the road to copyright hell. They were among the first influential people to begin lobbying congress for extended copyright laws, and other stupid shit.

And ironically, a substantial part of Disney's success owes itself to recycling material already in the public domain.